[A consideration of this important subject calls for some preliminary review of
the status of slavery in America, of the legislation in regard to it, and of the
public feeling concerning it. We have already made several references to the
condition of this institution in the colonial period. At the outbreak of the
Revolution slavery existed in all the thirteen colonies. Though the fact of its
existence was not always recognized by the English government, yet the ministry
had been during colonial times steadily in favor of the slavetrade, and vetoed
every effort of the colonies to prevent the importation of slaves.

The Quakers were the first to agitate the question of slavery from a moral point
of view. By the end of the seventeenth century they had begun to instruct the
slaves in religion, and to protest against their importation. During the
eighteenth century the emancipation of slaves had become an active measure of
the Quakers as a society, not of individuals only, as in other sects. The negro,
who had long been classed with domestic animals, now began to be looked upon as
a man. Yet no attack upon slavery where it existed was thought of. It was
supposed that by stopping the importation of slaves the institution would
gradually disappear. At the outbreak of the Revolution there were about half a
million slaves in the country. (In 1790 there were 697, 897 slaves, of whom
40,370 were held in the Northern States.) The increase of the free population
was greater than that of the slave, and it was erroneously argued that the
importance of the institution would steadily diminish. Antislavery sentiment was
not confined to the North, but even made its appearance in the South, while the
political aspect of the question of slavery was confined to importation. The
Congress of 1774 adopted resolutions opposed to importation, and in 1776 this
prohibition was repeated without opposition. The first step in the opposite
direction was made when the passage decrying slave-importation was stricken from
the Declaration of Independence.

During the Revolutionary War opinions in favor of emancipation grew in strength
in the North, the abolition societies of Pennsylvania became more energetic, and
similar societies were founded in the other States. Even in Virginia, in 1788,
the importation of slaves was forbidden, and steps were taken in favor of
gradual emancipation. But in the proceedings of the Constitutional Convention
the Southern delegates showed very clearly that they did not expect or desire
any rapid vanishment of the institution. There were two questions to be
considered,-the status of the slaves in taxation, and their status in
representation. The first of these was decided, by the casting vote of New
Jersey, in favor of the exemption of slaves from taxation. The second was
decided, in accordance with a compromise measure proposed by Wilson of
Pennsylvania, by reckoning five slaves as equal to three freemen in
representation. The compromise, as passed, prohibited Congress from forbidding
the importation of slaves until 1808. In the debates on these measures a strong
division of opinion appeared, but it was based solely on the political and
financial interests of the two sections, not on any idea of the morality or
immorality of human slavery. In 1787 an act was adopted prohibiting slavery in
the territory northwest of the Ohio, but providing for the surrender of fugitive
slaves from that territory. The Constitution also contained a provision to the
effect that any person lawfully bound to "service or labor" in any State, and
fleeing to another State, should be delivered up on demand. However it appeared
then, it has since become painfully evident that the slave-holding interest
gained decided victories in the formation of the Constitution, and placed the
institution of slavery on a solid basis from which it would not easily be
overthrown.

In 1789 North Carolina, and in 1802 Georgia, ceded their western territory to
the United States, with the proviso that no action should be taken prohibitory
of slavery in this territory. The cessions were accepted with this proviso. This
was the first step towards extending the dominion of slavery. In 1793 a
fugitive-slave law was passed by Congress, which ordered the return of a slave
from any State or Territory to which he had fled. A case occurred under this law
in 1797. Four North Carolina slaves had been freed by their masters. Being
condemned under a State law to be sold again, they fled to Philadelphia. They
were here seized as fugitive slaves, and, though a petition in their favor was
presented to Congress, its consideration was rejected by a vote of fifty to
thirty-three. A petition from these negroes was brought before Congress three
years later, with the same result, and petitions in regard to slavery from the
Quakers of Pennsylvania were similarly refused a hearing.

On January 1, 1808, the first day on which Congress had a right to act upon it,
a bill forbidding the importation of slaves was passed unanimously. Yet its
effect was not prohibitory, since the smuggling of slaves immediately took the
place of their open importation. Efforts were made to break up this illicit
trade, but with little effect, it being estimated by southern members that from
thirteen thousand to fifteen thousand slaves were annually smuggled into the
country. In 1819 Congress declared the slave-trade to be piracy, though none of
its participants seem to have been condemned as pirates.

That the number of slaves was rapidly increasing became very evident, and
colonization-schemes were proposed to dispose of free negroes and illegally-
imported slaves. It was supposed that by this method some amelioration of
slavery might be produced, though it was not clear what useful effect could
result.

There had by this time arisen a decided distinction between the industrial
systems of the two sections of the country. The North had grown more and more
distinctively commercial and manufacturing, the South more and more
agricultural. In the one slavery became destitute of utility; in the other it
appeared to be absolutely essential. The cotton-gin, invented by Whitney in
1793, made cotton-raising the special industry of the South, the cultivation of
this staple at once receiving a vigorous impulse. Slave labor, which had begun
to grow highly unsatisfactory, at once advanced in importance, and the demand
for slaves rapidly increased. Meanwhile, the representation of the Northern
States in Congress was steadily outnumbering that of the South. In 1790 the
North had thirty-eight representatives to the South's thirty-one. In 1820 the
North had one hundred and eight, the South eighty-one. The South was evidently
losing power in legislation, and saw the necessity of taking active measures to
increase its representation. This could be done only by an extension of slave
territory. The Territory of Missouri applied in 1819 for admission as a State,
and the question of slavery-extension at once came up in Congress. An account of
the controversy which succeeded, with its vitally-important termination, we
extract from Dr. Von Holst's "Constitutional and Political History of the United
States," as translated from the German by John J. Lalor and Alfred B. Mason.]

In February, 1819, the House of Representatives went into committee of the whole
over the admission of Missouri as a State. The recommendation of the committee
provided in the ordinary manner what was necessary to this end. Tallmadge of New
York moved the amendment that the admission should be made dependent upon the
two following conditions: prohibition of the further introduction of slaves, and
emancipation of all the slave children born after the admission as soon as they
reached the age of twenty-five. This motion gave life to the whole strife, and
the idea embraced in it remained the essence of the strife until the decision of
its most important points. The majority of the House of Representatives voted to
make the admission of Missouri as a State dependent upon such a limitation of
her power in regard to slavery; but the majority of the Senate decided against
this. Both houses insisted on their respective resolves, and Congress adjourned
without coming to any final decision. When the question again came up in the
next session, the opponents of the so-called "Missouri limitation" found them-
selves materially aided by a new circumstance. Maine, which had hitherto been a
district of Massachusetts, applied for admission as an independent State. The
majority of the Senate coupled together the Maine and Missouri bills, and so put
before the majority of the House the alternative of admitting Missouri without
any limitation, or denying, for the present, the admission of Maine. The House
was not yet ready to acknowledge itself so easily beaten. Neither earlier nor
later has a struggle been fought out in Congress in which the majorities of both
houses have stood by the decision once arrived at with such stiff-neckedness.
The close of the session constantly drew nearer, and an agreement seemed farther
off than ever. The whole country was in a state of feverish excitement. At the
last moment, in the night between the 2d and 3d of March, 1820, free labor and
the principle of nationality yielded to slavery and the principle of State
sovereignty. It the matter had affected Missouri alone, the defeat would have
been of small practical significance; but two principles had been given up, and
these two principles involved the weal and woe of the republic..

The South by no means limited itself to a discussion of the mere question of
law, but brought forward a cloud of pleas in justification. It was asserted that
the Louisiana Territory, to which Missouri belonged, had been obtained at a cost
of the whole Union, and that it would there-fore be unjust to deprive the
inhabitants of half the Union of the "colonization right;" but this would
evidently be the case if they were forbidden to take their property with them.
It was said, on the other hand, that slavery would present an impassable wall to
immigration from the North. Where labor bears the stamp of shame the free
laborer cannot turn his steps. But how could there be hesitation when the choice
was to be made between the exclusion of slavery or free labor? The Union should
be a nursery of freedom, and not a breeding-place for slavery. The South itself
declaimed with the greatest pathos over the curse of slavery. Was it not, then,
a self-evident duty to preserve the land from any extension of the curse?

The last part of this argument was repelled with great decision by the majority
of Southern members. They affirmed that when it was proposed to allow the
importation of slaves from Africa, or from any foreign country, the South would
be first and most earnest in protesting against it. But by compliance with the
wish expressed by the South the slave population of the Union "would not be
increased by a single soul." Over and over again it was affirmed, with Jefferson
in his old age, "All know that permitting the slaves of the South to spread into
the West . . will increase the happiness of those existing, and, by spreading
them over a larger surface, will dilute the evil everywhere and facilitate the
means of getting rid of it, an event more anxiously wished by those on whom it
presses than by the noisy pretenders to exclusive humanity."

[This false reasoning, however, was readily overthrown, it being undeniable that
increased subsistence would increase population, while the higher prices arising
from a widened market would be a strong impulse towards an increase in the
supply of slaves. The question of State rights was next brought in as an element
of the debate, it being claimed that the Constitution was but an "international
compact," which could exercise no other powers than those originally granted it
by the sovereign States, and could impose no conditions on new States not
directly specified in that instrument.]

It was indeed said that the slavery limitation did not really withdraw a
"fundamental right," but rather did away with a "fundamental wrong." But the
Constitution had left to the original States the right of tacitly letting the
fundamental wrong stand as a "right" or of making it one. If several States made
no use of this prerogative, and if the facts of every day showed it to be more
than a destructive fiction that slavery was a "purely municipal institution,"
yet this did not change the positive right. Slavery eat into the life-marrow of
the whole Union; therefore not only considerations of morality, but the highest
self-interest of the Union demanded the absolute prohibition of its further
extension. But morality and self-interest could not do away with the fact that
the whole Constitution rested upon the foundation of the equality of the members
of the Union, and that the original members had full freedom of action in regard
to this particular question.

The unconquerable obstacle can be expressed in a single sentence: the fact could
not be done away with that the Union was composed of free and slave States, that
is, the fact could not be done away with that the attempt had been made to
construct out of heterogeneous elements not only a harmonious but a homogeneous
whole.

Arguments could not bring the question any nearer to a solution. After the
differences of principle between the two parties had been clearly established,
the debates served only to excite passion. The slave-holders sought more than
ever to make a bridge of threats upon which they could cross to their goal. It
is said that Randolph proposed to Clay to abandon the House to the Northern
members, and that Clay actually gave the project serious consideration.

Missouri herself took an extremely arrogant position. When Taylor moved,
December 16, 1819, to defer the consideration of the bill till the first Monday
in February, 1820, Scott, the delegate of the Territory, objected that Missouri
would, in this case, go on and organize a State government without waiting any
longer for leave from Congress. And this threat of the Territorial delegate
against the whole Union was not punished as a piece of laughable insolence. Reid
of Georgia declared that Missouri would "indignantly throw off the yoke" and
"laugh Congress to scorn." Tyler of Virginia, the future President, asked what
would be done if "Missouri sever (herself) from the Union?" And Jefferson, the
ex-President, expressed the fear that Missouri would be "lost by revolt."

During the whole struggle the decision had depended only upon a few votes, for a
number of Northern representatives had voted, from the beginning, with the
South. That it was, nevertheless, so long before the South obtained, by threats
and worse means, the necessary number of votes, is a plain proof that an
independent and honorable spirit was then much more common among Northern
politicians than later. The restriction was finally stricken out by a majority
of only three votes.

The results of this defeat were immense; but still more fraught with evil was
the second defeat which the North suffered at the same time, and almost, indeed,
without a struggle. . Since only the northern part of Missouri Territory was to
be organized as a State, the southern part, the so-called Arkansas district, had
to receive a Territorial government of its own When the bill concerning this
came up for discussion in the House, Taylor proposed an amendment in regard to
slavery like the one which Tallmadge had brought up in the case of Missouri. In
committee of the whole the amendment was rejected by eighty to sixty-eight
votes. In the House it had a some-what better fate. The first part, which
forbade the further introduction of slaves, was rejected by seventy-one to
seventy votes; but the second part, which freed slave children born in the
Territory upon their twenty-fifth birthday, was adopted by seventy-five to
seventy-three votes. With the help of parliamentary rules, however, the question
was brought once more before the House. By the casting vote of the Speaker,
Clay, the bill was referred back to the committee, and on the same day, in
accordance with its report, the previously adopted amendment was rejected by
eighty-nine to eighty-seven votes.

The attempt to lay hand upon the peculiar institution in this Territory was
regarded by the slave-holders as an especial bit of spitefulness, because
Arkansas was regarded as belonging to the peculiar domain of the South. This
opinion influenced some Northern representatives, and to it the easy victory of
the South is to be ascribed. .

The eighth section of the Missouri act of March 6, 1820, provided "that in all
that territory ceded by France to the United States, under the name of
Louisiana, which lies north of 36 deg 30' north latitude, not included within
the limits of the State contemplated by this act, slavery and involuntary
servitude .. shall be, and is hereby forever prohibited." This was the second
half of the so-called Missouri Compromise, and the responsibility for its
adoption does not wholly rest upon a few weak or venal delegates from the North.
Only five Northern members voted against it. The North thus gave its approval by
an overwhelming majority to the division of the Territories between free labor
and slavery. It was indeed only declared that slavery should not be allowed
north of 36 deg 30', but this was self-evidently equivalent to saying that south
of this line no hindrance would be put in the way of the slave-holders. The
first suggestion of such a compromise was made by McLane in February, 1819, and
he then expressly declared that the Territories should be "divided" between the
free and slave States. It was never afterwards denied that this was a fair
interpretation of the compromise. The action of the Northern members can be
justified from no point of view. Even in mitigation of their fault it can only
be alleged that when they had decided to make a bargain the one agreed upon did
not seem disadvantageous, provided men did not look beyond the present time. The
Louisiana territory -- according to the boundaries set to it by the United
States -- was divided into two nearly equal parts by the line of 36 deg 30'.
But, while the Missouri question was still pending, an agreement was reached
with Spain concerning the boundary-line by which a great part of the southern
half was lost to the United States.

[The result of this compromise was that the country was practically divided into
free and slave sections, upon a fixed geographical basis. Though there was
nothing in the bill to declare that slavery should exist everywhere south of the
line of demarcation, it had become a tacit bargain which was not likely to be
successfully questioned.]

The South had allowed itself to pursue a purely idealistic policy where European
relations were concerned, but where the interest of the slave-holders was
touched upon it had followed from the beginning a policy that was not only
realistic in the highest degree, but wise. It took good care to demand
everything forthwith. What it needed at the moment satisfied it for the moment.
It propped the planks securely, and then shoved them just so much farther that
it could safely take the next step when it became necessary. It had done this at
present, and therefore was contented for the present. Up to this time the free
States had always been one more in number than the slave States. Now the latter
got Alabama and Missouri into the Union, and the former only Maine. The balance
of power in the Senate was therefore fully established. Their territorial
possessions were, in the mean time, ample; Florida, just acquired from Spain,
Arkansas and the rest of the southern part of the Louisiana territory, balanced
for a while the northwest, which, as Charles Pinckney wrote, had been inhabited
until now only by wild beasts and Indians. Why express alarm now over things
which could become realities only after the lapse of many years? But it did not
follow from this that alarm should never be expressed over them. Reid of Georgia
had already asked why a partition-line should not be drawn between the two
sections "to the Pacific Ocean.". .

Up to this time the division of the Union into two sections had been only a
fact: henceforth it was fixed by law. . Each of the two groups inevitably
constantly consolidated more and more; and the more they consolidated the more
the Missouri line lost its imaginary character. For the first time there was, in
the full sense of the term, a free North and a slave-holding South. "Political
prudence," as it was hyper-euphemistically called, might lead one to oppose this
with the strength of despair; but all political artifices were put to shame by
the power of facts. Even the last resource, the erasure of the black line from
the map by another law and by judicial decisions, remained without effect: the
line was etched too deeply into the real ground. Only one thing could erase it,
and this one thing was the destruction of the gloomy power that had drawn it.
From the night of March 2, 1820, party history is made up, without interruption
or break, of the development of geographical parties.

This was what was really reached when men breathed free, as if saved from a
heavy nightmare. The little and cowardly souls congratulated themselves that the
slavery question had been buried forever; and yet men never shook themselves
free from the Missouri question.

The strife was kindled again by a clause of the Constitution of Missouri by
which the legislature was obliged to pass laws against the entry of free colored
persons into the State. The North declared that this clause infringed upon the
constitutional provision according to which "the citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."
The slaveholders affirmed that free blacks were not to be considered as citizens
"in the sense of the Constitution." The Northern Congressmen opposed to this the
fact that free blacks were citizens in some Northern States, and that the clause
in question spoke of "citizens of every State." The debate was finally lost in
endless arguments over the meaning of the words "citizens" and "citizens of the
United States," without reaching any results.

[A compromise was finally proposed by Henry Clay, which permitted the
objectionable clause to remain in the State Constitution provided that the State
would agree never to pass a law to make it operative. This assurance was given
by the Missouri legislature, and the conflict ended.]

Three constitutional questions -- two of them of cardinal importance -- had been
discussed. Men had fought shy of all three for the moment, and for this reason
the originators of the compromise claimed that they had postponed the decision
to the Greek kalends. From a legal point of view, only one positive result had
been reached, and this was on a point concerning which no legal question
existed. The Northern majority had indirectly renounced the right of Congress to
forbid slavery, as far as the territory lying south of the line of 36 deg 30'
was concerned, and it had agreed to this renunciation because the Southern
minority had renounced, on its side, its claims to having the question of law
involved decided now in its favor, provided its concrete demands, which it based
upon its interpretation of the Constitution, were complied with.

This was the true nature and substance of the "compromise" which gave Henry Clay
the first claim to the proud name of "the great peace-maker."